M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The complainant before the District Forum in S.R.No.95/2007, aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, in rejecting his complaint as not maintainable, as per the order dt.18.10.2007, has preferred this appeal.
(2.) The complainant, who is a senior citizen, aged about 84 years, was staying in the old age home of the opposite parties. It appears, there was some misunderstanding or dispute between the complainant/appellant, and the opposite parties- Management. The opposite parties felt that allowing the complainant to continue in the old age home/ Elders home, may cause problem for smooth running of the home, and therefore, they have requested him to vacate the premises, by issuing notice, and when he sought extension of time, that was also granted, originally till 4.1.2006, but later on the extension was cancelled, and the complainant was requested to vacate the home on 31.12.2005. Aggrieved by the acts or action, taken by the opposite parties, the complainant complaining that he was put to pain and sufferings, claimed a sum of Rs.1 lakh, as compensation.
(3.) The District Forum, by going through the complaint, and analyzing the averments, felt that the complainant has not disclosed, how his case or accusation would come within the meaning of consumer, or within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. Further it felt that the relief sought for by the complainant also cannot be granted, in the absence of any allegation regarding the deficiency of service, or other grounds, as available under the Consumer Protection Act. In this view, the complaint came to be rejected on 18.10.97, which is under challenge before us.;